And now, class, for today’s crystalline Socratic heuristics. Oh.., …

Comment on New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues by wesley kime.

And now, class, for today’s crystalline Socratic heuristics. Oh.., you, with your hand up…, no, NOT catechistics. What’s your name, kid?

So when is working from a preconceived idea empirical — and, why not, existential? Add compassionate. And award-winning. Right, exactly! When the idea is from another scientist.

Now, when is working from a preconceived idea idiotic and hootable and doctrinaire and knuckle-headed? Yes, precisely. Here’s your cookie! When it’s from the Bible.

wesley kime Also Commented

New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
Loud Cries from the Bigger Tent, an Allegory (allegorical is big nowadays): “You accuse me of accepting theistic evolution? You lie! (By the way, what IS that?)”

“You accuse me of denying the Bible? How do you know what I believe, just from what I’ve proclaimed! Don’t tell me what I believe. I can’t believe you said I deny the Bible — I’m a believer possessed of fuller, more transcendent faith than you.”

“You accuse me of scoffing off the 6-day creation of Genesis 1? That’s abuse, that’s persecution; you’ve hurt me. Better a millstone be tied around your neck. I believe in the 6 days as much as you do! Only they’re allegorical, those days. And I see a broader meaning to Genesis 1 than what we’ve been taught (or what EGW says).”

Moral: the Third Angel’s Loud Cry in the Broader Tent is “Broader Meaning,” not deeper understanding.

New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
Like the April rains in Ohio, on good days every twenty minutes, and as much a part of the landscape, and as welcome, are the postings of our beloved resident professor. And as inclusive, identifying himself with “all SDAs,” “all conservative Christians,” with all “scientific” and “inquiring” and “right-thinking minds Christian and agnostic,” “all Christians and agnostics of faith” (quotation marks as per Dan Rather) en masse, like the raindrops falling upon the just and unjust alike, like holy water sprinkled upon the throng, with individual blessings upon right-thinking posters like the Marshalls et al singled out by name; indeed upon, it would seem, every man and woman and high school student in creation, upon us all, all except Sean. Such name-dropping. But, alas, there might be some who, otherwise half-dozingly entertained, just might wish the voice sui generis would presume to speak only for itself. Such demographic presumption evokes the proffer’s own standard request — where’s your data? Have you personally done statistically valid polls? Show us your protocol. And parameters. Where are Z- and T-scores? As a start.

New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
Welcome again, class, to Philosophy of Science 101. Today’s carefully devised Socratic: Ignoring all other variables (e.g., data, protocol, even bilateral bias, direction of process vector, etc.), which of the following, as a scientific tool, is the more productive in the lab (not the blog)? (1) Sean’s faith. (2) Agnostic obsession with it.

Recent Comments by wesley kime

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
Informative and stimulating, but proceeding into more confusion. A veteran of Moderna vaccinations, I trust, hope, they are effective, at least until otherwise. The whole business, being part of End Times, is in the hands of God, not humans expert and as degreed as they may be.

Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Brilliant, beautiful, and so right! Speaking of your presentation at LLU recently. Great to see you and your family (especially my namesake, Wes. God bless! WK

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Bob Helm: Dr. Sanford is very familiar to most of us. He was invited to speak at LLU several years ago and I and a great many were privileged to hear him.

Evolution from Space?
Hats off yet again to Sean for pursuing this topic as a scientist should, no nonsense, and in it’s proper setting — as a revival of one of the ancient ideas recently upgraded as a desperate alternative to the increasingly compelling intelligent design data. I had occasion to review panspermia a few years ago and as is my wont I found it more amusing than scientific. If you would like what was intended to be a satirical response to panspermia and other related curiosities you could check out:
Meantime, Sean’s article is of far more cogent worth.

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
As he has done on this site many times, Sean in his line-by-line-item response to C. White (not EG or EB) has, to my mind, clearly enunciated the issue and resolution.

When all the hermeneutics, quoting, and arguing and inordinately judgmental riposte are over, it comes down, as I understand it, to two things: 1) Whether the 7th day Sabbath (whether enunciated in the famous 10 commandments or otherwise) is still valid, and 2) Does the grace obtained by the vicarious sacrifice by the shedding of Christ’s blood or other divine process too deep for us to understand in this life, cover every sin automatically and without ado, altogether passively on our part, or is it only on condition that we first totally and deeply accept it? Other details always hassled forever are distractions.

I accept that I must accept it, wholly, actively, even with agony, with my whole being.